D&D General A glimpse at WoTC's current view of Rule 0

[dave2008]

Milder versions still have the same basic problems, they're just less severe. It still makes the assumption that the GM's perspective is automatically the one that will best serve the game.

IDK, I think both DMs and Players can have desires they are not willing to compromise on. However, that doesn't mean they cannot or will not compromise in other areas. To me that doesn't mean the DM's (or the Player's) perspective is automatically the one that best serves the game. In fact, I think making that logically leap detrimental to this discussion.

 

[Vaalingrade]

IDK, I think both DMS and Players can have desires they are not willing to compromise on. However, that doesn't mean they cannot or will not compromise in other areas. To me that doesn't mean the DM's (or the Player's) perspective is automatically the one that best serves the game. In fact, I think making that logically leap detrimental to this discussion.

Which is why I'm good with the new version. It makes it clear this is a collaborative game and people are just going to have to learn to collaborate to play this collaborative game.

 

[Oofta]

The relevance is that some people have been taught that the proper way to GM are things I think are flat out bad ideas. If they'd been taught different ones, they wouldn't have the same problems. And one of the things I think applies here is an overly strong top-down approach to things.

I see that as a world apart from an intrinsic problem with the person.

What specific behaviors? Because if you're saying that we should always strive to get agreement? Yep, absolutely. I'm just saying that sometimes it doesn't really impact outcomes that much so I'd rather just have the DM make a decision and move on no matter which side of the DM screen I'm on. If you're saying the DM should never make a final call, even if some people disagree? I disagree.

Way back in the day, the DMG had truly terrible advice. Along the lines of "If your players are being overly cautious, punish their characters until they play the way you want them to." But those days are long ago and, thankfully, largely forgotten.

 

[dave2008]

Which is why I'm good with the new version. It makes it clear this is a collaborative game and people are just going to have to learn to collaborate to play this collaborative game.

IMO, it always had been. I can't imagine playing it any other way!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is why I'm good with the new version. It makes it clear this is a collaborative game and people are just going to have to learn to collaborate to play this collaborative game.

Unless they don't read the specific online adventure that is the only place this "rule 0" appears in.

 

[Belen]

The intent is still there and still gross to me.

Like it gets a pass for general use, but when someone straight up tries to explain to me that Dungeon Master means they're the master here... yeah bye. Because I'm not the other thing no matter how much the game loves that as a point of lore for no good reason.

I keep coming back to you and I have far different experiences with the game. I have never seen this happen.

I used the whole name as a way to explain that arbiter of the game was implied in the role. I have heard of bad experiences on ENWorld or other boards but just not seen it happen in the community.

My own bad experience was with a husband DM whose wife played in the game and he made her cry when they argued about the game so my wife and I exited that group very fast.

No one should ever seek to control other people, but the role of DM serves as arbiter, pace setter, and story/adventurer facilitator and, personally, I create campaigns and settings with certain restrictions because I do not get to play, have a lot more burden to make it fun for others, and that is part of what makes it fun for me.

I am always upfront with players and work with them within reason but I also am not going to have 100 playable species unless I am running something planar where it makes sense.

 

[Thomas Shey]

IDK, I think both DMS and Players can have desires they are not willing to compromise on. However, that doesn't mean they cannot or will not compromise in other areas. To me that doesn't mean the DM's (or the Player's) perspective is automatically the one that best serves the game. In fact, I think making that logically leap detrimental to this discussion.

I think it can be broken down starkly.

You have a rules question come up in a group consisting of five players and a GM. The GM thinks it should be done one way; four of the five players think it should be done a different way.

Which way is the group expected to go with? I see no general reason in that situation it should be the GM (I'm not even sure it should if two of them have a different one, if none of the other three have an opinion one way or another). Yes, there can be social complications that apply, but that doesn't change the basic principal.

 

[Vaalingrade]

IMO, it always had been. I can't imagine playing it any other way!

We've always played it that way in general.

But in a group where everyone has DM'd, some people in the group don't get to DM anymore because they took the older versions to heart and make the game miserable trying to impose their 'vision'.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Unless they don't read the specific online adventure that is the only place this "rule 0" appears in.

That would be the problem, yes.

Right now, they default understanding of 'Rule 0' is the toxic horrible one that needs to go away forever.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What specific behaviors? Because if you're saying that we should always strive to get agreement? Yep, absolutely. I'm just saying that sometimes it doesn't really impact outcomes that much so I'd rather just have the DM make a decision and move on no matter which side of the DM screen I'm on. If you're saying the DM should never make a final call, even if some people disagree? I disagree.

Way back in the day, the DMG had truly terrible advice. Along the lines of "If your players are being overly cautious, punish their characters until they play the way you want them to." But those days are long ago and, thankfully, largely forgotten.

I give an example above. If no one cares that much, then its unlikely to come up. The question is what happens when people do care.